M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD AND ORS.versusCHHOTA BIRSA URANW

                    [2014] 4 S.C.R. 887


                                                                A
      MIS BHARAT COKING COAL LTD AND ORS.
                           v.
                CHHOTA BIRSA URANW
            (Civil Appeal No. 4890 of 2014)
                     MARCH 25, 2014                             B
               [GYAN SUOHA MISRA AND
             PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

    SERVICE LAW:                                                c
     Date of birth - Correction of - Claim of employee to
correct his date of birlh and rectify discrepancies in his service
record - Declined by employer - Allowed by High Courl - Held:
With an aim to prevent cascading inconveniences caused by
change of date of birlh, a wronged employee should not be D
denied of his rights especiaJ/y when he has adhered to the
procedure laid down and attempted to avoid litigation by
resorting to in-house mechanisms - Public Corporations!
Departments, should not benefit from their own omission of
duty - In the instant case, appellant-company failed to follow E
the procedure as laid down in Implementation Instruction - It
was due to discrepancies which subsisted that appellants
gave all its employees a chance to rectify the same -
Respondent duly followed the procedure available --
Appellants are bound by their actions and their attempt to F
deny claim of ,respondent on the basis of technicality is
incorrect - It has been correctly determined by single Judge
of High Courl that dispute was not raised at fag end of service
nor on the eve of superannuation but it was raised al the
earliest possible· opportunity in 1987 when respondent G
became aware of the discrepancy - Order of High Court does
not call for any interference.


                             887
                                                                H
    888      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A         EVIDENCE:

       Date of birth - School leaving certificate - Evidentiary
  value of - Relevant date with regard to issuance of school
  leaving certificate - Held: Implementation Instruction No. 76
8 clause (i)(a) permits rectification of the date of birth by treating
  the date of birth mentioned in school leaving certificate to be
  correct provided such certificates were issued by educational
  institution prior to date of employment - Date of issue of
  certificate actually intends to refer to the date with relevant
  record in school on the basis of which the certificate has been
C issued - A school leaving certificate is usually issued at the
  time of leaving school by student, subsequently a copy
  thereof also can be obtained where a student misplaces his
  said school leaving certificate and applies for a fresh' copy
  thereof - Issuance of fresh copy cannot change the relevant
D record which is prevailing in records of the school from date
  of admission and date of birth of student, duly entered in
  records of the school.

        The respondent joined appellant no. 1 company on
E 31.3.1973. At that time, his date of b.irth was recorded as
  15.2.1947. He obtained a secondary school leaving
  certificate in 1979 in which his date of birth was recorded
  as 6.2.1950. In 1986 the respondent passed the Mining
  Sardarship and in the certificate acknowledging the same
F his date of birth was recorded as 6.2.1950. In 1987 in the
  process of identifying the discrepancies and correcting
  the service records in terms of Implementation Instruction
  no. 76, the respondent specifically sought that the
  incorrect date of birth be corrected as mentioned in the
G Mining Sardar Certificate and the School Leaving
  Certificate. However the same was not given effect to. The
  respondent subsequently made a representation on
  16.. 7.2006 for correction of his date of birth but the same
  was rejected on 19.7.2006. By order dated 2.8.2006, the
H respondent was intimated that he was to superannuate
    BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. CHHOTA BIRSA               889
                   URA NW
  from 28.2.2007. The respondent filed a writ petition           A
  seeking to quash the said order on the ground that his
  date of superannuation was incorrectly calculated by
  relying on the erroneous date of birth which should have
  been rectified as provided in the Mining Sardar Certificate
  and the School Leaving Certificate. The single Judge of        B
  the High Court allowed the writ petition. The Letters
  Patent appeal filed by the company was dismissed.

      Dismissing the appeal, the court

       HELD: 1.1 With an aim to prevent the cascading            C
  inconveniences caused by a change of date of birth, a
  wronged employee should not be denied of his rights
  especially when he has adhered to the procedure laid
  down and attempted to avoid litigation by resorting to in-
  house mechanisms. Public Corporations/Departments,             D
  should not benefit from their own omission of duty. In the
- instant case, the appellant-company failed to follow the
  procedure as laid down in the Implementation
  Instruction. It is the appellant's omission and not the
  inaction of the respondent which led to the dispute being      E
  raised in the courts at suctl a delayed stage. The attitude
  of such Corporations, wherein to avoid the rectification
  of a date of birth, litigation is unnecessarily prolonged
  just because they have number of resources at their
  command, goes against the grain of equ.ity and duty            F
  towards society at large. [para 13] [905-D-F]

       1.2 In 1973 when the respondent joined the service
  and Form 'B' register was filled and when it was filled
  once again in 1983, there were certain discrepancies
  regarding permanent address, father's name and date of         G
  joining. In 1987, when the appellant in terms of
  Implementation Instruction No. 76 contained in the
  National Coal Wage Agreement Ill, made available the
  details of all employees for verification of service records
  and gave them chance to identify and rectify the               H
    890     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A discrepancies in their service records, the respondent
  raised the dispute as to incorrect particulars regarding his
  date of joining, father's name, permanent address and
  date of birth. The respondent duly followed the procedure
  available. In such circumstances, the appellant was
B bound by its actions, and its attempt to deny the claim
  of the respondent on the basis of technicality was
  incorrect. The appellants should have followed the
  procedure as laid down by Implementation Instruction
  No. 76 to determine the date of birth of an existing
c employee. Thus, it is evident and correctly determined by
  the single Judge of the High Court that the dispute was
  not raised at the fag end of service nor on the eve of
  superannuation but it was raised at the earliest possible
  opportunity in 1987 when the respondent became aware
  of the discrepancy. [para 8, 11-12] [899-C-F, 902-E-F; 903-
0
  A-B, D-E]

       1.3 The High Court duly verified the genuineness of
  the school leaving certificate on the basis of a
  supplementary affidavit filed by legal inspector of the
E appellant company admitting that the school leaving
  certificate was verified and found to ba genuine. Further,
  Implementation Instruction No.76 ciause (i)(a) permits
  rectification of the date of birth by treating the date of birth
  mentioned in the school leaving certificate to be correct
F provided such certificates were issued by the educational
  institution prior to the date of employment. The date of
  issue of certificate actually intends to refer to the date with
  the relevant record in the school on the basis of which
  the certificate has been issued. A school leaving
G certificate is usually issued at the time of leaving the
  school by the student, subsequently a copy thereof also
  can be obtained where a student misplaces his said
  school leaving certificate and applies for a fresh copy
  thereof. The issuance of fresh copy cannot change the
H relevant record which is prevailing in the records of the
  BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. CHHOTA BIRSA             891
                 URANW
school from the date of the admission and birth date of      A
the student, duly entered in the records of the school.
Therefore, the order of the High Court does not call for
any interference. [para14-15] (905-H; 906-A-C, D-G]

     G. M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal vs. Shib
                                                             8
Kumar Dushad and Ors. 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 336 = (2000)
8 SCC 696; Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer and
Anr. (1995) Suppl. 2 SCC 598; State of Punjab vs. S. C.
Chadha 2004 (2) SCR 216 = (2004) 3 SCC 394; State of UP.
& Anr. v. Shiv Narain Upadhyay 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 847 =
(2005) 6 SCC 49; State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath C
Sitaram Kamble & Ors. 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 685 = (2010)
14 SCC 423; Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M.
Manickam & Ors. (2011) 9 SCC 425; High Court of Andhra
Pradesh vs. N. Sanyasi Rao 2011 (13) SCR 403    =  (2012) 1
SCC 674; and Mohd. Yunus Khan v. UP. Power Corporation D
Ltd. 2008 (14) scR 1114 = (2009) 1 sec 80 - cited.
                   Case Law Reference:
    2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 336       cited         para 4
                                                             E
    (1995) Suppl. 2 sec 598       cited         para 4
    2004 (2) SCR 216              cited         para 9
    2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 847       cited         para 9
    2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 685       cited         para 9       F
     (2011) 9 sec 425             cited         para 9
    2011 (13) SCR 403             cited         para 10
    2008 (14) SCR 1114            cited         para 10
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.          G
4890 of 2014.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2010 of the
High Court of Jharkhand Judicature at Ranchi in LPA No. 90
of 2010.                                                     H
         892      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.


     A       Anupam Lal Das, Anirudh Singh, Didesh Sinha for the
         Appellants.

               Gopal Prasad for the Respondent.

               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     B
               PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave granted.

             2. The present appeal arises against the order of the High
       Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No.90
       of 2010 dated September 20, 2010, which was filed against
     c the order dated December 11, 2009 passed by the learned
       Single Judge in a writ being W.P. (S) No. 496 of 2007 filed by
       the respondent in the present matter, wherein the court quashed
       the order dated August 2, 2006 passed by the Project Officer,
       Jamunia Open Cast Project (hereinafter referred to as 'Project
     D
       Officer') Area of the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (being appellant
       No. 1 in the present matter), which stated that the respondent
       will superannuate on February 28, 2007.

               3. The brief facts leading to the same are as under :
·-   E
             3.1. The respondent joined appellant No. 1, Bharat Coking
       Coal Ltd. ('BCCL'), a 'Government Company' as under Section
       617 of the Companies Act, 1956, his date of joining as per the
       impugned order is stated to be March 31, 1973. At the time of
     F joining, his date of birth was recorded as February 15, 1947,
       in Form 'B', a statutory form stipulated under the Mines Rules,
       1955, the basis of recording the same is not clear. The
       respondent obtained a Secondary School Leaving Certificate
       issued on October 12, 1979, which indicated that he attended
       Rajya Samposhit Uchcha Vidyalaya, Baghmara, a Government
     G
       school in Dhanbad from January, 1964 to August. 1964. In the
       said certificate, the date of birth of the respondent is recorded
       as February 6, 1950, which is in conflict with his date of birth
       as entered by him in the service records being the
       aforemention~d Form 'B'.
     H
   BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. CHHOTA BIRSA                 893
      URANW [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
      3.2. Subsequently, in 1983, he was transferred to the        A
Jamunia Open Cast Project and as stated, he once again
signed the Form 'B' wherein his date of birth was recorded as
February 15, 1947 and he allegedly did not raise any objections
then.
                                                                   B
     3.3. In 1986, the respondent passed the Mining Sardarship
and in the certificate acknowledging the same his date of birth
was recorded as February 6, 1950, corresponding to the date
recorded in the aforementioned School Leaving Certificate.
Therefore, there existed two sets of records of the respondent's   C
details; first being the Form 'B' register on one hand in which
the date of birth was recorded to be February 15, 1947 and
second being the Mining Sardar Certificate and the School
Leaving Certificate wherein the date of birth was recorded as
February 6, 1950.
                                                                   D
      3.4. In 1987, the National Coal VVage Agreement Ill
 (hereinafter referred as 'NCWA Ill') being Implementation
 Instructions were put into operation for stabilizing service
records of employees. Pursuant to Implementation Instruction
 No. 76, appellant No. 1 provided its employees with Nominee E
Forms as prescribed by the Implementation Instructions which
contained relevant extracts from the service records in the Form
'B' register, thereby enabling the employees to identify any
discrepancy or error in the records and get the same rectified
as per the prescribed procedure. In wake of the same the F
respondent became aware of inconsistencies in the records
regarding his date of birth, date of appointment, father's name
and permanent address; therein the respondent made
representations to the Project Officer. Jamunia Open Cast
Project for rectification of the abovementioned errors and he G
specifically sought the incorrect date of birth to be corrected
as per the date mentioned in the Mining Sardar Certificate and
the School Leaving Certificate. It appears that the concerned
authorities rectified the discrepancies regarding the name of
the father and the permanent address; however the date of birth H
    894      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   and date of appointment remained unchanged. Thereafter, as
    stated by the respondent, he made a subsequent representation
    to the concerned Project Officer on July 16, 2006 for correction
    of the date of birth in the Form 'B' register in accordance with
    the Mining Sardar Certificate and the same was rejected by
B   the appellant company vide letter dated July 19, 2006.

        3.5. The Project Officer vide order dated August 2, 2006
  intimated the respondent that he is to superannuate from
  February 28, 2007. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed
  a writ bearing W.P. (S) No. 496 of 2007 for quashing of the
C order of superannuation by the Project Officer on the grounds
  that the date of superannuation has been incorrectly calculated
  by relying on the erroneous date of birth which should have
  been rectified in terms of the NCWA Ill, which provided that the .
  Mining Sardar Certificate and the School Leaving Certificate
D must be treated as authentic documents by the employer as
  proof of the date of birth of the employee. The appellant
  company without challenging the genuineness of the same
  countered the respondent on the grounds that the Form 'B'
  register was a conclusive proof of date of birth as it was verified
E by the signature of the employee being the. respondent; and
   having accepted the entry then, the respondent is not entitled
  to raise any dispute after twenty years and at the fag end of
   his service. The High Court while allowing the writ determined
  that the respondent did not raise such a claim at the fag end
F of his career, rather such a claim was made in 1987 itself and
  the appellant ·company had failed to respond suitably to th!'l
  dispute raised by the respondent. Thereby, the Court directed
  the appellant company to conduct an enquiry on the basis of
   the certificates produced by the respondent and to effectively
G communicate to the respondent the decision taken together with
  the reasons assigned within three months of the passing of the
   order.

        3.6. Aggrieved, the appellant company preferred a Letters
    Patent Appeal, the order in which is impugned herein. The High
H
     BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. CHHOTA BIRSA                 895
        URANW [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
Court dismissed the appeal having found no merit in the same         A
in light of the clauses in Implementation Instruction No. 76.

      3.7. Thereafter, the matter lies before us.

      4. The appellant in the present appeal has come before
us seeking that the impugned judgment be set aside. The case         B
of the appellant is, firstly, when a school leaving certificate is
not a document mentioned in Implementation Instruction No. 76,
the High Court was incorrect in substituting the same with the
documents given in the said Instruction, thereby creating a
situation which supersedes all other statutory documents like        C
Form 'B' register. Secondly, the High Court should have
considered that the date of birth recorded in Form 'B' register
being a statutory document under Mines Act is binding and
cannot be preceded by a non-statutory document and therefore,
the inter alia holding of the High Court that School Leaving         D
Certificate and Mining Sardar Certificate would take
precedence over company records and other statutory
documents is contrary to the judgment of this Court in G.M.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., West Bengal vs. Shib Kumar
Dushad and Ors. 1• Thirdly, the appellant has challenged the         E
exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226
considering that the respondent as workman could avail
efficacious remedy from the forum under the Industrial Disputes
Act and the respondent could raise such a dispute at the fag
end of his career de hors the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal         F
Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer and Anfl. Fourthly, that the documents
on which' the respondent has relied being School Leaving
Certificate and Mining Sardar Certificate are not those
mentioned in Implementation Instruction No. 76 for review of
determination of date of birth with respect to existing employees    G
and that the implementation of the impugned order would give
way to many unscrupulous employees to procure such
documents and take advantage of the same. Fifthly, the
1.   (2000) a sec 696.
2.   (1995) Suppl 2 sec 598.                                         H
    896     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.

A   respondent while signing the Form 'B' register at the time of
    appointment had verified his date of birth as February 15, 194 7
    on his joining on January 1, 1973 and later on his transfer in
    1983; since he is a supervisory staff capable of reading and
    writing and understanding English his verification amounts to
B   acceptance and his raising of dispute in 1987, fourteen years
    after is incorrect. Sixthly, the appellant has challenged the
    reliance placed on the School Leaving Certificate by the
    respondent on the grounds that the same was issued on
    October 12, 1979 six years after his appointment and as the
c   Mining Sardar Certificate was based on the same reliance on
    it is also doubtful; furthermore, since both the documents were
    issued after the date of employment they cannot form basis of
    correction of date of birth; furthermore, the appellant has
    challenged the correctness of the School Leaving Certificate
    on the grounds that the alleged Certificate was not verified by
0
    the District Education Commissioner; that the attendance
    register for relevant period when the respondent allegedly
    attended school was not available and the verification was with
    respect to one Sri Birsa Prasad Uranw; it is further submitted
E   that these discrepancies which were covered by legal inspector
    of company (who was duly charge-sheeted) in collusion with the
    respondent make the school leaving certificate dubious. Finally,
    it was submitted that the respondent has raised the issue at
    the fag end by means of a belated writ i.e. thirty years after
    appointment and after twenty years (as claimed by him) of his
F   knowledge.

       5. Per contra, the respondent has denied the averments
  of the appellant and has submitted that he has not disputed his
  date of birth at the fag end of his service as found by the learned
G Single Judge. It has been submitted that the respondent joined
  service on March 31, 1973, when his date of birth was recorded
  as February 15, 1947 basis of which is not clear; that
  subsequently in 1986 he cleared his Mining Sardarship and
  was given a Mining Sardar Certificate where his date of birth .
H was recorded as February 6, 1950 same as in his School
   BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. CHHOTA BIRSA                    897
      URANW [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
Leaving Certificate; that subsequently in 1987, on noticing the       A
incorrect date of birth and other details in his service records,
the respondent immediately submitted an application for the
correction of his date of birth as February 6, 1950 and other
minor corrections in his service records. On receiving no
information regarding the same on inquiry from his superiors,         B
he was given the impression that the necessary corrections
were made i[l the service records and the respondent was
surprised to receive his superannuation order in 2006 on the
basis of the incorrect date of birth being February 15, 194 7.

       6. In these circumstances, the respondent has contended,
                                                                      c
firstly, that it is not the case that the respondent disputed date
 of birth at the end of service, instead he had disputed the same
way back in the year 1987, it is the employer who disputed the
same at the fag end by creating the impression that claim of
respondent for correction of date of birth was accepted when,         D
in reality, it was not and even the learned Single Judge has
concurred that the rectification was not sought at the fag end.
 Secondly, it was· contended that the respondent has relied on
two documents for correction of his date of birth as February
6, 1950, namely the statutory Mining Sardar Certificate and the       E
School Leaving Certificate. Thirdly, it has been contended that
in light of the policy contained in part (B) of Implementation
Instruction No. 76, the appellant as per clause (i)(a) accepted
the School Leaving Certificate but it was contended before the
High Court that as the same was issued in 1979 and as the             F
workman joined service in 1979, the c~rtificate was thus, 'not
issued' prior to the date of employment and therefore cannot
form the basis of correction of date of birth. However, this
contention was rejected by the High Court, which held that the
school records were created prior to joining and a copy issued        G
on a subsequent date does not create a difference as the date
of issue of certificate refers to the date when the relevant record
was created on the basis of which the certificate has been
issued. In addition to the same, it has also been submitted that
the appellate court had granted time to the appellant to verify       H
    898      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A the genuineness of the School Leaving Certificate and in
  response through a supplementary affidavit, the appellants have
  admitted the school leaving certificate to be genuine, thus
  contended by the respondent that as the School Leaving
  Certificate was found to be genuine, it warrants no interference.
B Fourthly, it has been contended by the respondent that his claim
  for correction was not considered on the basis of the Mining
  Sardar Certificate which as claimed has been given by the
  Central Government and was submitted by him, which is also
  mentioned as a basis for correction of date of birth in Clause
c (i)(b) in Part B of Implementation Instruction No. 76. It is further
  submitted that the appellant did not give any reason as to why
  the Minirig Sardar Certificate was rejected by them. Finally, the
  respondent has submitted that he was made to retire
  prematurely and not allowed to work inspite of favourable
D orders from the High Court; furthermore, the respondent filed
  a contempt petition but was not allowed to work by the
  petitioners on the pretext of pendency of matter before higher
  courts. It is also the case of the respondent that he was not
  gainfully employed anywhere else during that period.

E        7. It is pertinent to note at this point that during the oral.
    proceedings, this Court vide order dated July 4, 2013 directed
    the appellants as under:

          "List after four weeks to enable the counsel for the
F         petitioners to produce the original and also photocopy of
          the Form 'B' register where it is alleged that the
          respondent had affixed his signature on the date of birth
          which was recorded as 15.02.1947."

  However, as found by us and pointed out by the respondent
G instead of filing the original Form 'B' prepared in 1973, at the
  time of joining of the respondent with designation as Explosive
  Carrier (which as claimed admittedly did not bear the signature
  of the respondent), filed a photocopy of the alleged Form 'B'
  dated January 27. 1987 which showed the designation of the
H respondent to be that of Mining Sardar. It has been submitted
  BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. CHHOTA BIRSA                    899
     . URANW [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
by the respondent that his signature was taken on the alleged        A
form on January 27, 1987 while handing over the photocopy of
the same for necessary correction of the record.
     8. On the basis of the above, we find that within the given
set of facts the dispute is regarding the manner in which the
date of birth should be determined; whether the reliance should      8
be placed on the set of records being the Mining Sardar
Certificate and the School Leaving Certificate which state the
date of birth to be February 6, 1950 or reliance should be placed
on the extracts of the Form 'B' register which state the date of
birth to be February 15, 1947. The position which emerges on         C
the basis of the above is that after having joined service in 1973
when the Form 'B' register was filled and when it was filled once
again in 1983 when the respondent was transferred, there were
certain discrepancies regarding permanent address, father's
name and date of joining. In 1987, when the appellant made           D
available the details of all employees for verification of service
records, the respondent raised the dispute regarding his
incorrect particulars being the date of joining, father's name,
permanent address and date of birth. Apparently, the
abovementioned corrections other than date of birth were             E
made. Thus, it is evident and correctly determined by the
learned Single Judge that the dispute was not raised at the fag
end of service or on the eve of superannuation but it was raised
at the earliest possible opportunity in 1987 when the respondent
became aware of the discrepancy. As the factum of when the           F
dispute was raised is settled what remains to be determined
is the issue of date of birth'.
     9. In the corpus of service law over a period of time, a
certain approach towards date of birth disputes has emerged
in wake of the decisions of this Court as an impact created by       G
the change in date of birth of an employee is akin to the far
reaching ripples created when a single piece of stone is
dropped into the water. This Court has succinctly laid down the
same in Secretary and Commissioner, Home Department vs.
R. Kirubakaran (supra), which is as under:-                          H
    900       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 4 S.C.R.


A          "7. An application for correction of the date of birth should
          not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping
          in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be
          pointed out that any such direction for correction of the
          date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain
B         reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him .
          for their respective promotions are affected in this
          process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury,
          inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of
          birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some
          cases for years, within which time many officers who are
c         below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may
          lose their promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown
          when a person accepts appointment keeping in view the
          date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to
           us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight
D         of by the court or the tribunal while examining the
          grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of
           his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case, on the
           basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in
           nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the
E          tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of
           materials which make such claim only plausible. Before
           any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must
           be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the
           person concerned and his claim for correction of date of
F          birth has been made in accordance with the procedure
           prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order.
           If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing
           the period within which such application has to be filed,
           then such application must be filed within the time, which
G          can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to
           produce the evidence in support of such claim, which
           may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of
           birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on
           the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of
H          birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of
    BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. CHHOTA BIRSA                 901
       URANW [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
      the strategy on the part of such public servants to A
      approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their
      retirement, questioning the correctness of the entries in
      respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this
      process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in
      many cases, even if ultimately their applications are B
      dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for
      months, after the date of superannuation. The court or the
      tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim
      relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie
      evidence of unimpeachable character is produced c
      because if the public servant succeeds, he can always
      be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed
      undeserved benefit of extended service and merely
      caused injustice to his immediate junior."
  The same approach had been followed by this Court while D
. deciding on date of birth disputes irrespective of the relief being
  in favour of the workman or the employer. (See: State of
 Punjab vs. S.C. Chadha 3, State of UP. & Anr. v. Shiv Narain
 Upadhyay4, State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Vali Mohd. Dosabhai
 Sindhi5, State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram        E
 Kamble 6 )
      10. Another practice followed by the courts regarding such
 disputes is that date of birth of an employee is determined as
 per the prescribed applicable rules or framework existing in the
 organization. Even this Court inspite of the extraordinary powers F
 conferred under Article 136 has decided date of birth disputes
 in accordance with the applicable rules and seldom has the
 Court determined the date of birth as it is a question of fact fit
 to be determined by the appropriate forum. (See: State of
 Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Goraknath Sitaram Kamble & Ors. 7 G
 3. (2004J 3 sec 394.
 4. (2005J 6 sec 49.
 5. (2006J 6 sec 537.
 6. (201 OJ 14 sec 423.
 7. (201 OJ 14 sec 423.                                             H
    902         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   Registrar General, High Court of Madras vs. M. Manickam &
    Ors. 8 High Court of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Sanyasi Rao 9)
         11. As stated earlier, this Court needs to decide the
    manner in which date of birth has to be determined. It is the
    case of the appellant that as the respondent raised the dispute
B
    at the fag end of his career and as there exists a set of records
    being the Form 'B' register which is a statutory document in
    which the date of birth has been verified by the respondent
    himself twice, other non statutory documents should not be
    given precedence and the orders of the High Court must be
c   set aside. This claim of the appellant does not stand in the
    present matter. As determined, the dispute was not raised at
    the fag end of the career; on the contrary, it was raised in 1987
    almost two decades prior to his superannuation when he first
    came to know of the discrepancy. It has been held in Mohd.
D   Yunus Khan v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. 10 , that, "an
    employee may take action as is permissible in law only after
    coming to know that a mistake has been committed by the
    employer." Thus, the case of the respondent should not be
    barred on account of unreasonable delay. Admittedly, the
E   appellant as the employer in view of its own regulations being
    Implementation Instruction No. 76 contained in the National Coal
    Wage Agreement Ill, gave all its employees a chance to identify
    and rectify the discrepancies in the service records by providing
    them a nominee form containing details of their service records.
F   This initiative of the appellants clearly indicated the existence
    of errors in service records of which the appellants were aware
    and were taking steps to rectify the same. Again.st this
    backdrop, the stance of the appellant that the records in the
    Form 'B' register must be relied upon does not hold good as it
G   is admitted by the appellant that errors existed in the same.
    Even a perusal of the nominee form exhibits the ambiguity
    regarding the date of birth and date of joining. It was due to
    8.    (2011 > g sec 425.
    9.    (2012) 1 sec 674.
H   1o. (2009) 1 sec 80.
  BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. CHHOTA BIRSA                   903
     URANW [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
the discrepancies which subsisted that the appellants gave all     A
its employees a chance to rectify the same. In such
circumstances, the appellants are bound by their actions and
their attempt to deny the claims of the respondent is incorrect.
The respondent in this case duly followed the procedure
available and the attempt of the appellant to deny the claim of    B
the respondent on the basis of technicality is incorrect. We,
therefore, feel that the learned Single Judge has correctly held
that:

    "11. Having given the petitioner, like all employees, the      C
    benefit of seeking correction of the entries contained in
    their service records including their date of birth, the
    petitioner's claim cannot be denied, merely because he
    had signed upon the Form 'B' Register at the time of its
    opening and containing the entry of date of birth a
    recorded the1ein. "                                            D

     12. The appellant in the present case should have followed
the procedure as laid down by Implementation Instruction No.
76 to determine the date of birth of an existing employee. The
provisions of which read as follows:                               E

    "(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect
    of existing employees.

           (i)(a) In the case of the existing employees
    Matriculation Certificate of (sic: or) Higher Secondary        F
    Certificate issued by the recognized Unive:rsities of Board
    or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of
    Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and
    admit cards issued by the aforesaid Bodies should be
    treated as correct provided they were issued by the said       G
    Universities/Boards Institutions prior to the date of
    employment.

          (i)(b) Similarly, Mining Sardarship, winding engine or
    similar other statutory certificate where the Manager had
                                                                   H
    904       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A         to certify the date of birth will be treated as authentic.

                 Provided that where both documents mentioned in
          (i)(a) and (i)(b) above are available, the date of birth
          recorded in (i)(a) will be treated as authentic
B              (ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such
          cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring
          and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the
          Management. The Management after being satisfied on
          the merits of the case will take appropriate action for
c         correction through determination committee/medical
          board.

                 (C) Age Determination Committee/medical Board
          for the above will be constituted by the Management. In the
D         case of employees whose date of birth cannot be
          determined in accordance with the procedure mentioned
          in (B) (i) (a) or (B) (i) (b) above, the date of birth recorded
          in the records of the company, namely, Form 'B' register,
          CMP Records and Identity Cards (untampered) will be
          treated as final. Provided that where there is a variation,
E
          in the age recorded in the records mentioned above, the
          matter will be referred to the Age Determination
          Committee/Medical Board constituted by the Management
          for the determination of age.

F                (D) Age determination: by the Age Determination
          Committee/Medical Board referred to ab.ove may consider
          their evidence available with the colliery management; and/
          or

G               (E) Medical Board constituted for determination of
          age will be required to manage (sic assess) the age in
          accordance with the requirement of medical jurisprudence
          and the Medical Board will as far as possible indicate the
          accurate age assessed and not approximately."
H
   BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. v. CHHOTA BIRSA                  905
      URANW [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.]
     In another case, being G.M. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs.        A
     Shib Kumar Dushad (supra) where the date of birth of an
     employee of the Bharat Coking Coal was in dispute and
     the same set of instructions were applicable, this court
     referring to the Implementation Instruction held that:
                                                                 B
     "20. From the provisions in the instructions referred to
     above, it is clear that in case of dispute over the date of
     birth of an existing employee who has neither a
     Matriculation Certificate/Secondary School Certificate nor
     a statutory certificate in which the Manager has certified C
     the entry regarding the date of birth to be authentic the
     employer is to refer the matter to the Medical Board. "

      13. We give due regard to the sensitive nature of date of
birth disputes and fully agree with the approach laid down in
R. Kirubakaran Case (supra). However, with an aim to prevent        D
the cascading inconveniences caused by a change of date of
birth, a wronged employee should not be denied of his rights
especially when he has adhered to the procedure laid down
and attempted to avoid litigation by resorting to in-house
mechanisms. Public Corporations/Departments, should not             E
benefit from their own omission of duty. In the present case, the
appellant-company failed to follow the procedure as laid down
in the Implementation Instruction. It is the appellant's omission
and not the inaction of the respondent which led to the dispute
being raised in the courts at such a delayed stage. The attitude    F
of such corporations wherein to avoid the rectification of a date
of birth, litigation is unnecessarily prolonged just because they
have number of resources at their command, goes against the
grain of equity and duty towards society at large.

      14. As noted by us. the respondent in 1987 on coming to       G
know of the wrong recording of his date of birth in his service
records from the nomination form sought rectification.
Therefore, such rectification was not sought at the fag end of
his service. We have further noticed that the High Court duly
verified the genuineness of the school leaving certificate on the   H
    906      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 4 S.C.R.


A basis of a supplementary affidavit filed by Shri Dilip Kumar
  Mishra, legal inspector of the appellant company on September
  6, 2010 before the High Court. It has been admitted in the said
  supplementary affidavit that the school leaving certificate has
  been verified and has been found to be genuine. We have
B further noticed that Implementation Instruction No.76 clause
  (i)(a) permits rectification of the date of birth by treating the date
  of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate to be correct
  provided such certificates were issued by the educational
  institution prior to the date of employment. The question of
c interpreting the words 'were issued' was correctly interpreted,
  in our opinion, by the High Court which interpreted the said
  words for the purpose of safeguarding against misuse of the
  certificates for the purpose of increasing the period of
  employment. The High Court correctly interpreted and meant
  that these words will not apply where the school records
0
  containing the date of birth were available long before the
  starting of the employment. The date of issue of certificate
  actually intends to refer to the date with the relevant record in
  the school on the basis of which the certificate has been issued.
E A school leaving certificate is usually issued at the time of
  leaving the school by the student, subsequently a copy thereof
  also can be obtained where a student misplaces his said school
  leaving certificate and applies for a fresh copy thereof. The
  issuance of fresh copy cannot change the relevant record which
  is prevailing in the records of the school from the date of the
F admission and birth date of the student, duly entered in the
  records of the school.

       15. Therefore, the ord~r of the High Court does not call for
  any interference. We endorse the reasoning given by the High
G Court and affirm the same.

        16. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the
    appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
    Rajendra Prasad                                    Appeal dismissed.
H